People v. Perez
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 51
| Cal. | 2018Background
- In 1994 Perez and an accomplice entered an auto-parts store; the accomplice allegedly stole a device while Perez waited in a truck and later drove off while the victim’s arm was trapped in the truck, dragging him and causing scrapes. Perez was convicted by jury in 1995 of aggravated assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury and received a Three Strikes sentence.
- After Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act, 2012), Perez petitioned for resentencing in 2013 under Penal Code § 1170.126; the DA opposed, arguing Perez was ineligible because he was "armed with a deadly weapon" (§ 1170.12(c)(2)(C)(iii)).
- The trial court found Perez eligible for resentencing, treating use of the vehicle as "incidental." The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning the jury’s verdict necessarily established the vehicle was used as a deadly weapon.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide the standard of proof and review when determining resentencing ineligibility under Prop 36 and whether the Sixth Amendment bars a judge from relying on facts not found by a jury.
- Court held (1) the prosecution must prove resentencing ineligibility (e.g., being "armed with a deadly weapon") beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the Sixth Amendment does not bar a trial court from considering facts not found by a jury in this resentencing-ineligibility inquiry, and (3) on the record, Perez was armed with a deadly weapon (the vehicle) and thus ineligible for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner was "armed with a deadly weapon" for Prop 36 ineligibility | Prosecution: burden to prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt (per People v. Frierson) | Perez: N/A (issue in DA's favor) | Held: Prosecution bears BRD burden to prove ineligibility |
| Whether Sixth Amendment prohibits judge from relying on facts not found by jury to decide resentencing ineligibility | People: trial court may rely on such facts; scheme is ameliorative and does not increase a sentence | Perez: judicial factfinding here would deprive him of jury determination of facts that affect sentencing | Held: Sixth Amendment does not bar judge from considering non-jury findings for Prop 36 ineligibility (Dillon/lenity reasoning applies) |
| Standard of appellate review for trial court eligibility finding based on record of conviction | People: appellate deference not required; court of appeal treated as factual review | Perez: trial court’s finding supported by substantial evidence | Held: eligibility is a factual question reviewed for substantial evidence; here no substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding of eligibility |
| Whether Perez’s use of the vehicle constituted being "armed with a deadly weapon" | People: jury verdict (assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury) and record show vehicle was sole means of applying force, thus vehicle was used as deadly weapon | Perez: vehicle use was incidental/for escape; no intent to use as weapon; charged under force-prong, not weapon-prong | Held: Vehicle was used in a manner capable of and likely to produce great bodily injury; Perez was armed with a deadly weapon and ineligible for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Frierson, 4 Cal.5th 225 (clarifies prosecution bears BRD burden to establish Prop 36 ineligibility)
- People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.4th 1023 (defines "deadly weapon" to include objects used in a manner capable of producing death or great bodily injury)
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (mens rea for assault; actual knowledge and general intent discussion)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (procedures reducing final sentences as lenity do not trigger Sixth Amendment jury-finding requirements)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing maximum punishment must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- People v. Estrada, 3 Cal.5th 661 (trial courts may examine facts beyond judgment of conviction for Prop 36 eligibility)